Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Are you going to pay the household charge? [Part 1]

Options
1…170171173175176…334

Comments

  • Options
    #5162
    Stinicker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,102 ✭✭✭Stinicker


    alastair wrote: »
    You prefer the pixie dust solution? Running a country requires taxation. Even jolly free-market cheerleaders like the US apply property taxes.

    Yes running a country takes taxation but there is only so much taxation the people can take, what is needed is deep and long lasting cuts to the behemoth of the public sector which sees jobs for life protected under the croke park agreement, 100% inefficency and and total layabout useless workers who are overpaid and do feck all work.

    Taxation is killing the economy and the government can't tax their way out of this mess, they have to cut out the wastage and the fat from the system, not tax everyone else to keep a bloated system of overpaid workers built on the back of a property tax bonanza during the boom years.

    If all that money which was taken in by the state was invested into useful infrastructure like high speed rail, more motorways, fibre-optic broadband nationwide, into the schools and developing the economy properly away from construction then our economy would never have totally collapsed just gone into a normal downturn. They pissed away billions in cronie ventures and pandering to the trade unions. Now in the light of day the party is over and they want the public to pick up the tab for it. No thanks, I'm not paying for the incompetence of those Fianna Fail traitors.


  • Options
    #5163
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Just tax people`s existance. Thats what a property tax is, except selective, because a property is seen as some sort of wealth indicator by some, even if its just their home.

    Or put dog licences up to €500, since some here see them as similar.

    Property is equity. Equity that's pretty hard to move beyond the reach of the state. A property tax is a progressive and equitable model of taxation, and (assuming the tiered model isn't screwed up by the govt) should form a good component of the future revenue stream. Bumping up dog licences might well be a good idea, but it's not going to substitute for the previous stamp duty stream - whereas a property tax will.


  • Options
    #5164
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Stinicker wrote: »
    Yes running a country takes taxation but there is only so much taxation the people can take

    We pay less in taxation than pretty much any other comparable state.


  • Options
    #5165
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    bbam wrote: »
    I think a progressive residential property tax is ok.
    Provided it is based on a decent criteria AND ability to pay. Forget about local services, that's a smoke screen excuse.

    Ability to pay does not come into it. You own a house, therefore you somehow will have money to pay extra tax. A tax on a persons own belongings.


  • Options
    #5166
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    alastair wrote: »
    We pay less in taxation than pretty much any other comparable state.

    Are you sure about that?

    Fuel? Vat? Tobacco/alcohol?
    Motor tax?

    Income tax is far from the only tax an Irish person pays.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5167
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    Chucky the tree wrote: »
    Yes into jail if that's what it takes. Either that or take it directly from his social or pay cheque. Like dominos they will all fall, human nature.

    So, you would try to force an employer, other that in the cosseted state sector, to deduct money from an employee's wages every week?
    Or deduct it from a social welfare payment, couldn't see labour wearing that.
    Good luck to ya with that.


  • Options
    #5168
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Stinicker wrote: »
    what is needed is deep and long lasting cuts to the behemoth of the public sector which sees jobs for life protected under the croke park agreement, 100% inefficency and and total layabout useless workers who are overpaid and do feck all work.

    We've a pretty small public sector workforce. Of that workforce there's relatively few who actually have jobs for life, and they're being offloaded as fast as possible through early retirement deals. Croke Park doesn't offer any security over the long term to the public sector workers - it's a short term measure - even if it operated as you suggest - which it doesn't. Layabouts exist for sure, but do you honestly believe they represent the majority of public service employees?

    Do you favour the Sunday Independent by any chance?


  • Options
    #5169
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    Ghandee wrote: »
    Hi chucky.

    Have you any idea what the cost of incarcerating someone would be?

    Put it this way, if the govt even attempted to jail say five percent of liable houses, even for a month, it would probably break the country at the minute.

    The cost of jailing someone would be far greater than the tax/fines imposed.

    Sure most people who are sent to jail for not paying fines etc are literally brought in one door, have their paperwork processed, and let out because there's nowhere to put them.
    Even the law reform commission has called for an end to such stupid practices.


  • Options
    #5170
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    alastair wrote: »
    Property is equity. Equity that's pretty hard to move beyond the reach of the state. A property tax is a progressive and equitable model of taxation, and (assuming the tiered model isn't screwed up by the govt) should form a good component of the future revenue stream. Bumping up dog licences might well be a good idea, but it's not going to substitute for the previous stamp duty stream - whereas a property tax will.

    The equity in many peoples homes leaves them worse off than non home owners. And now will be taxed extra for that privelage.

    And if its a sole property, ie the home, any positive equity is of no finanial benefit.


  • Options
    #5171
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    Ghandee wrote: »
    Hi chucky.

    Have you any idea what the cost of incarcerating someone would be?

    Put it this way, if the govt even attempted to jail say five percent of liable houses, even for a month, it would probably break the country at the minute.

    The cost of jailing someone would be far greater than the tax/fines imposed.


    They wouldn't need to jail 5% of 800k, once it got to that stage people would simply pay up and very few people would be willing to go to jail. No one with a job would anyway and he'll simply risk losing it. Over the short term the cost would be greater but in the long term as a way of making the majority comply and pay the charge it would be easily beneficial to the government.
    gerryo777 wrote: »
    So, you would try to force an employer, other that in the cosseted state sector, to deduct money from an employee's wages every week?
    Or deduct it from a social welfare payment, couldn't see labour wearing that.
    Good luck to ya with that.


    There has already been talk about taking court fines from people welfare and pay cheques. I don't see why Labour would mind, if someone breaks the law they should be punished and I doubt Labour have a problem with that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5172
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    alastair wrote: »
    Property is equity. Equity that's pretty hard to move beyond the reach of the state. A property tax is a progressive and equitable model of taxation, and (assuming the tiered model isn't screwed up by the govt) should form a good component of the future revenue stream. Bumping up dog licences might well be a good idea, but it's not going to substitute for the previous stamp duty stream - whereas a property tax will.

    Ever heard of negative equity?


  • Options
    #5173
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    alastair wrote: »
    We pay less in taxation than pretty much any other comparable state.

    That's DIRECT taxation your talking about.


  • Options
    #5174
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Ever heard of negative equity?

    Maybe they will offer a tax rebate:D:p


  • Options
    #5175
    jack67
    Registered Users Posts: 184 ✭✭jack67


    alastair wrote: »
    We pay less in taxation than pretty much any other comparable state.

    have you got the facts and figures to back this up?


  • Options
    #5176
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Ghandee wrote: »
    Are you sure about that?

    Fuel? Vat? Tobacco/alcohol?
    Motor tax?

    Income tax is far from the only tax an Irish person pays.

    Yes - entirely sure. Factoring in consumption taxes, local authority taxes, and income taxes, we rank 25 out of the 29 EU states.

    http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/gen_info/economic_analysis/tax_structures/2011/country/ie.pdf


  • Options
    #5177
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    alastair wrote: »
    We've a pretty small public sector workforce.

    300,000 for a population of 4.6 million, we need more PS workers quick,:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #5178
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    The equity in many peoples homes leaves them worse off than non home owners. And now will be taxed extra for that privelage.

    And if its a sole property, ie the home, any positive equity is of no finanial benefit.

    Not really - it's still a saleable commodity, and renting is always an alternative.


  • Options
    #5179
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Ever heard of negative equity?

    He has now, i hinted at it 2 posts previous to yours.


  • Options
    #5180
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    Our public sector is too small and we pay too little taxes. Something smells fishy there :D


  • Options
    #5181
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    Chucky the tree wrote: »
    Over the short term the cost would be greater but in the long term as a way of making the majority comply and pay the charge it would be easily beneficial to the government.



    .


    Does that sound democratic and fair?
    The majority of the govts voters, the people who put them there, show through lack of interest and refusing to register for a bum charge, yet you think they should be basically forced into towing the line?


    This is Ireland buddy, not north Korea.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5182
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    300,000 for a population of 4.6 million, we need more PS workers quick,:rolleyes:

    Or about half of the ratio in say, Denmark. Our public sector is no behemoth.


  • Options
    #5183
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    alastair wrote: »
    Not really - it's still a saleable commodity, and renting is always an alternative.

    Couple of questions.

    Are you employed?
    PS or private sector?
    Do you own your home?
    Have you paid this tax?

    If someone had a mortgage of €300,000 on a property worth €150,000, they sell as you suggest, what should they do with the €150,000 outstanding?

    How much would it cost the local council to house them?


  • Options
    #5184
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Ghandee wrote: »
    This is Ireland buddy, not north Korea.

    Feel free to vote for the parties that oppose the charge then. No biggie.


  • Options
    #5185
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    alastair wrote: »
    Not really - it's still a saleable commodity, and renting is always an alternative.

    So tax a home, based on the fact you could sell it to then go rent a house?

    They are already covered there, taxing any gain the seller makes.

    So your saying the home owner is taxed because they have a saleable item. Even if they never sell it?

    And so, why would a negative equity owner pay the property tax then?


  • Options
    #5186
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Couple of questions.

    Are you employed?
    PS or private sector?
    Do you own your home?
    Have you paid this tax?

    If someone had a mortgage of €300,000 on a property worth €150,000, they sell as you suggest, what should they do with the €150,000 outstanding?

    How much would it cost the local council to house them?

    None of this really has any bearing on my posts, but...

    Combination of self-employed private sector and public sector income. Primarily private sector.

    Home owner. Mortgage payer for another couple of years.

    I've paid the charge.

    The tiered charge that will replace the flat €100 will be based on a property's actual market value, not a historic one, so negative equity issues are something of a red herring. No-one forced people to buy at inflated prices.


  • Options
    #5187
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,751 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    300,000 for a population of 4.6 million, we need more PS workers quick,:rolleyes:

    Along with the increase in population there has been an increase in the numbers employed up from 1.2 million to 2.1 million between 1990 and 2007, since gone down a bit probably. This increase in economic activity on it's own would required extra PS workers in various sectors. The cost of the PS is budgeted to decrease €400 million this year and by 2015 it is projected to be minus €3.1 billion compared to 2008.


  • Options
    #5188
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    alastair wrote: »
    The tiered charge that will replace the flat €100 will be based on a property's actual market value, not a historic one, so negative equity issues are something of a red herring. No-one forced people to buy at inflated prices.

    And what of the renters who are availing of the services this tax is paying for?

    And why so many exemptions? Everyone should pay.


  • Options
    #5189
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    alastair wrote: »
    We aren't paying our way even if you remove the bank bailout from the equation - that's a simple fact - doesn't even need the capitalisation.

    It's called a household charge because it's selectively applied to domestic residences - rollercoasters are exempt. Nonetheless it's a property tax.

    Jesus wept! We aren't paying our way because:

    1) Public sector costs and staffing levels are too high.

    2) Our SW system is overgenerous

    3) We regularly have people masquerading as one thing in opposition - and another when they get into power, a la "labour" party, allegedly representing the working man/woman.

    Glad to see that at least you recognise it for what it is; a property tax - designed to penalise those who have never cost the state anything in the shape of providing houses. Whereas the ones that the state had to house are exempt - even though many of those are in a better position to pay than homeowners.

    As I said already - only in fcuking Ireland.


  • Options
    #5190
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    alastair wrote: »
    The tiered charge that will replace the flat €100 will be based on a property's actual market value, not a historic one, so negative equity issues are something of a red herring. No-one forced people to buy at inflated prices.

    I hope you're always that smug my friend. Just be glad it wasn't you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5191
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    alastair wrote: »

    No-one forced people to buy at inflated prices.

    Easy to say that now, I'm in a similar position myself, but tell that to people who bought in the 'boom', at the time they were being cheerleaded by FF and co. and told that things would never go wrong for them.

    Trust our leaders, after the last 15 years I don't think so.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement